Question of the day: can a doctor be a homophobe, a xenophobe, or a religious extremist?

The well-known Moscow doctor Pavel Brand asked in his blog the question: can a doctor be a homophobe, or a nationalist, or a religious extremist?

And this is how he answered it:

“It would seem that the answer is obvious... Of course it cannot!

But life is a little more complicated than the oath of a Russian doctor.

I remember one famous professor who refused to advise HIV-infected and homosexuals because of their sinfulness...

One familiar "genius" surgeon, as I recently learned, refuses to operate on the inhabitants of the Baltic States, the Caucasus and Central Asia, on the grounds that they allegedly do not like Russians...

Today stumbled upon a pediatrician who found signs of homosexual propaganda in the Pediatrics manual by Nelson. There, you see, the possibility is admitted that children can grow up in same-sex families and it is argued that this is normal...

Recently I was asked why strong medical organizations are needed in Russia?

Including in order to drive such people out of the profession, regardless of merits and titles!

I decided to write an update, because from the comments I saw that the initial message of the post was misunderstood.

I believe that a doctor, like any person, can be anyone: an anti-Semite, a homophobe, a religious extremist, an idiot, an alcoholic, etc., but exactly as long as it does not affect his professional activities.

If, for one reason or another, he cannot keep his views to himself during work, then he must be removed from the profession, at least until he can change his attitude or learn to control his inner demons..."

This post generated a huge amount of responses, and diametrically opposite properties. Most of the commentaries, alas, once again showed that Russian society is very deeply painful, that it still needs to be treated and treated, pulled out of this medieval obscurantism and hypocrisy, and only then, perhaps, such questions will not be needed, due to the obvious answers on them. So some of Brand's colleagues welcomed his position, considering it the only correct one:

- Sounds great, but how realistic? Someone among doctors in the 21st century in Moscow cuts off the clitoris of girls from the Caucasus, “cures” homosexuality with religious violence, tortures drug addicts, dissuades pregnant women from abortion and artificially prolongs the terms. Prejudice affects work. It may not be as serious in surgery as it is in therapy or in mental health and obstetrics and gynecology, but in reality it does. And now you talk to all these doctors separately, like normal people, not animals, each has a harmonious system of justification why they did this, what is so right and for the good...

- There are all sorts of stories. In 1990, one outstanding cardiac surgeon, being a famous homosexual, flunked a doctor on the academic council while defending his doctorate, because he left the Communist Party the day before. Motivating that such a person can hardly be a Doctor of Science if he changes his beliefs so easily. At the same time, his communist beliefs did not prevent him from forcing young employees of the department to have sex. But he operated brilliantly...

- Sergei Sergeevich Yudin, who was an absolutely brilliant surgeon, was at the same time a notorious anti-Semite. Should I have driven him out of the profession? Probably only if he refused to help the Jews. Expulsion from the profession for speaking out is the basis of the current culture of tolerance, which is not at all close to me .

However, not all so simple. Many of Brand's position did not command respect:

- I always thought that the doctor is primarily about philanthropy, regardless of orientation, skin color, religion. It turns out that I was mistaken. Doctors who not only consider homophobia, nationalism, etc. as normal, but also actively declare their painful hostility on social networks (although in general, no matter where) of course, will "find" a positive response from patients, both former and future. Another disappointment in specialists who are unfamiliar with the concept of "humanism". PS although, probably, to demand from people of Soviet upbringing the ability to accept and understand this naive desire of my person from the present time.

Perhaps more convincing than others, although at first psychologist Yulia Diaghileva responded very emotionally to this post:

“In principle, it is a pity that in the post-Soviet space, activities in the field of helping professions are not licensed. The presence of licenses for the profession greatly reduces the number of those who are ready to publicly declare their rejection of some outsiders just because they simply exist.

What wildness! On the page of a prominent doctor, ethical issues are discussed: can a doctor, for example, be a homophobe? Or racist? Or a nationalist?

And they come to an amazing conclusion: what is not, then, doctors are also human beings, have the right to any beliefs. Another thing is, they thoughtfully note that this should not be reflected in the profession, do you understand?

At home you hate gays, but you come to work - convictions, so you took off, put on your robe and treat everyone.

This, like, will be professional.

Here, naturally, my eyes crawl out onto my forehead.

No, it didn't seem to me: representatives of the helping profession defend their "right" to discrimination.

Are you absolutely fucking there, or what? Are you pollinated with something there?

Where did you get the idea that it's okay for you to have the "right" not to tolerate some people just because they - these people - just exist? So they just exist in the world, and you have a "right" not to tolerate these people and you defend this "right" ??

What kind of crash do you have in the basic program?.."